Standing Committee A

[Mr. Kevin Hughes in the Chair]

Road Safety Bill

David Jamieson: On a point of order, Mr. Hughes. During one of our fascinating debates last week, I offered on Tuesday, in response to a request from the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), to provide copies of the police national drink drive proforma, the MGDD forms. For his information, that is the manual of guidance drink driving—it seems so obvious one when knows—as published on the Home Office website. I am pleased to tell the Committee that copies are now on the Table and have also been placed in the Libraries.
The MGDD forms have been produced jointly by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers for England and Wales and represent one of the many sections of the manual of guidance prepared for use by prosecution teams to promote best possible practice and to minimise or eliminate the risk of non-compliance with the law. They are working documents that are constantly evolving and being updated in the light of case law. Because they represent best practice, adherence to them is not essential for compliance with legislation, a flexibility that prosecution services must preserve. 
Finally, as I said in the debate, if roadside evidential testing becomes law, a fresh process will be needed, drawing, where appropriate, on experience of station hospital procedure. I am grateful to you, Mr. Hughes, for allowing me to raise the matter.

Kevin Hughes: I am sure that the Committee is grateful for that information.

Greg Knight: Further to that point of order, Mr. Hughes.

Kevin Hughes: It was not merely a point of order, so I do not think that I can take anything further to it.

Greg Knight: I just wanted to say that I am obliged to the Minister for that information.

Kevin Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has said it now.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Hughes. I am not following up on that point of order, but can you confirm that if we cannot discuss the matter as a point of order, there will be an opportunity to discuss it in the debate?

Kevin Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to be able to find an ingenious way of doing that.

Clause 22 - Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc.

Amendment proposed [27 January]: No. 15, in clause 22, page 25, line 23, at end insert 
'except in circumstances where a motor vehicle is stationary and the engine is switched off.'. 
—[Mr. Chope] 
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Charlotte Atkins: On Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) remarked on an interesting point relating to whether a driver is in control of a vehicle at traffic lights. It is important to retain flexibility when we interpret what is meant by ''driving''. The Department believes that it would be wrong to encourage people to think that they can use a mobile phone just because they have switched off their engine, perhaps at traffic lights. Clearly drivers must be alert to their surroundings whenever they are in control of the vehicle. We consider that the offence should apply at times when a driver has stopped but the vehicle can be expected to move off after a short while, as at traffic lights.
Some hon. Members suggested that a driver who is stationary for, say, 15 minutes should be allowed to use a mobile phone. That judgment is best left to the police and the courts. We cannot legislate for every eventuality, and an inflexible approach is likely to create more problems than it solves. 
I also mentioned electric vehicles, which could give rise to the problem of whether an engine is off or on at traffic lights. I understand that hybrid vehicles, which combine an internal combustion engine and an electric motor, have the technology to switch off the engine to conserve power when travelling at very slow speeds or when stationary at junctions or traffic lights. It would certainly be inappropriate for somebody to circumvent the offence of using a mobile phone merely by claiming that their engine was switched off. I hope that in light of those comments the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will withdraw his amendment.

Christopher Chope: I am more determined than ever to press the matter. What is the mischief that we are trying to address? It is people using a mobile phone when control of their vehicle is hampered because they are distracted. The Minister said that it is desirable to have a massive discretion as to whether, first, to prosecute and, then, to convict, and that that is best left to the police and the courts. Unfortunately, this offence will be the subject of fixed penalties, and we heard earlier that the only discretion in relation to fixed penalties was whether there should be disqualification. There is no discretion as to  whether full penalty points should be imposed or, once the fixed penalty notice has been served, as to whether to proceed with a prosecution.
What the Minister said is slightly disingenuous in regard to the actual law. Last Thursday—this is the advantage of having the Official Report before us— she said: 
 ''The term 'driving', to which the hon. Member referred, is used in much road traffic legislation without further definition.'' 
She went on: 
 ''It is not necessary and any sensible person would recognise that if the car is stationary and the engine is turned off, no offence will be committed.'' 
The Minister has gone back slightly from that position. Again, last Thursday she said: 
''if someone is stuck in a five-mile tailback because of an accident on the motorway and all the vehicles around them are stationary with their engines turned off, clearly it is fine to use a mobile phone, because the motorist is not about to drive off.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 January 2005; c.188-9.] 
The Minister said that a person who had been stationary for about 15 minutes would not automatically be not guilty of an offence. That would be subject to the decision of the police and the courts. I suspect that the reason why she has slightly modified what she said is that her advisers have been telling her what the law established by different court decisions is. 
I want to refer briefly to the words of Lord Reid, one of the most senior Law Lords in the country's top judicial forum, in the case of Pinner v. Everett, reported in the House of Lords in 1969, as they are still highly relevant to this issue. He said: 
 ''I must therefore consider in what circumstances a person can, by the ordinary usage of the English language, properly be said to be driving a car.'' 
He went on: 
 ''Clearly the term cannot be limited to periods during which the car is in motion. Suppose the car is held up in a traffic jam and is stationary for five or ten minutes. No one would say that the driver is not driving the car during that period. He may have switched off the engine and be reading a book or a map; or he may have got out to clean his windscreen; and I do not think that it would make any difference if he got out to buy a paper from a newsvendor on the pavement.'' 
In all those circumstances the driver would still be driving. Under the Bill he would still be guilty of an offence that carried a mandatory three penalty points on his licence. 
Lord Reid went on: 
 ''But, on the other hand, suppose the driver pulls up at the kerb and leaves his car to go shopping. I do not think that it could be said that he is driving the car while he is buying groceries.'' 
That is one extreme. If a driver uses a mobile phone while buying groceries, having parked the car in a car park, he will clearly not be guilty of an offence, but if he leaves the car to speak to a newsvendor when he is stuck in a long traffic jam, he will still be guilty of an offence if, while purchasing that paper, he uses a mobile phone. 
Another noble Lord in that same case, Lord Upjohn, said:
 ''A person in the driving seat preparing to drive by switching on is, in my view, driving. It is not necessary that the vehicle should be in motion. A person is obviously driving although he may be in an almost interminable traffic block or waiting at a level crossing or at traffic lights or if he merely fills up with petrol; nor can it make any difference if in a traffic block he switches the engine off to prevent it overheating or to save petrol. But if the driver leaves his driver's seat it is more difficult. If the driver leaves his seat, removes the ignition key and locks up the car for the night, he is quite clearly . . . no longer driving''. 
The reference to the learned words of noble former Law Lords has caused some wry amusement among members of the Committee, but we have the opportunity today to say, as legislators, that we do not believe a mandatory endorsement and penalty should follow if someone uses a mobile phone in a traffic jam when they have switched off the engine. We must legislate clearly. The decided case law that currently applies means that someone facing such charges would have to be advised by their solicitor, or their Member of Parliament, that they had no defence against the charges that have been brought, and would have to plead guilty and pay the fixed penalty. That is not what we intend. We should make it clear that an offence involving ''driving'' when the car is stationary with its engine switched off will not carry a mandatory endorsement.

Charlotte Atkins: A driver does not have to accept a fixed penalty notice because he can elect to go to court to fight the case. The hon. Gentleman's remarks on the 1969 case demonstrate that there are so many various cases that it is important to leave these matters to the discretion of the police.

Christopher Chope: I take completely the opposite view. If someone chose not to accept the fixed penalty and went to court, there would, in the light of the decided cases, be no defence at all. The magistrates would have to find them guilty on the facts. To suggest that some sort of discretion might apply is to mislead the public. The Government are seeking to change the law so that an endorsement and a fine are mandatory in the circumstances we have described. That is manifestly absurd.
If we do not make it clear that that is not our intention, we will be deemed to be accepting that the same rules apply to the use of a mobile phone while driving, as in the case set out in 1969. That may seem a long time ago, but it is still the leading case regarding the definition of ''driving''. What the Minister said in our previous sitting, and some of what she said today, could mislead motorists into thinking that they will not be committing an offence if they use their mobile phone in a long traffic jam with the engine switched off and they have left the car. If we do not accept the amendment, however, they will be committing an offence. 
Unless the Government are prepared to come forward with another amendment to cover exactly that situation, members of the Committee should use some people power and common sense and support the amendment. 
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: In the light of the Government's refusal to accept the amendment, it would be unconscionable for us to put on to the statute book a requirement that there should be mandatory endorsement for a driver using a mobile phone when stationary, with the engine switched off, on the motorway for a quarter of an hour or half an hour. That is mad and it will bring the law into disrepute. We are faced with no option but to oppose the clause in toto.

Charlotte Atkins: We have had a good discussion. There is clearly a difference of opinion, but I urge Committee members to accept the clause. It relates to the proper control of a vehicle, whether that is a matter of using a mobile phone or dealing with other distractions.

John Thurso: As I said in the previous sitting, I have great sympathy with the amendment and I just voted for it. However, the clause is important, and I shall vote for it in the hope that a similar amendment will be discussed, and perhaps accepted, in another place.

David Wilshire: The only reassurance I have heard from the Government was offered in the last sitting, when the Minister said:
 ''Clearly, in such circumstances no police officer would prosecute a motorist simply because there was a long wait.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, Thursday 27 January; c. 189.] 
Now we are told that it is reasonable to leave such matters to the police. I do not find that reassuring at all. If the police need to take action against a motorist, and that is the only way available for them to do so, the chances are that they will do it. We think that it is unreasonable to do certain things. The message I have got from the Government is that they acknowledge that we have a point, but that common sense can be applied by the police. If they accept the point in principle but will not make any concession, we have no alternative but to vote against the clause. 
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - Breach of duty to give information as to identity of driver etc.

Greg Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in clause 23, page 26, line 31, leave out '6' and insert '3 to 6.'.
I have long been an advocate of pre-legislative scrutiny because when Ministers publish a Bill and it is examined by the House in Committee, there is a danger that they tend to defend it as drafted and to regard any amendment as a personal attack. I hope that Ministers in this Committee will not take that attitude because we are trying to make improvements. 
I think that I understand the weakness in the law that the Minister wants to address. He can intervene if I am wrong. The problem is when someone who would receive more than three points on his licence for driving a motor vehicle at quite a high speed decides deliberately to tell the authorities when he receives a notice through the post a few days later that he has no recollection of the incident and no idea who was driving his vehicle. That is an attempt to prevent the courts from imposing a fairly harsh punishment for a serious case of speeding. For the offence of not supplying the name of the driver, he receives just three points. 
However, just moving from three to six points and giving the courts no discretion and no ability to consider the circumstances of the case means that injustices could occur. I will give the Minister an example from my personal knowledge. During the recent European elections, a team of Euro-candidates were offered two vehicles by a supporter of my party to use during the election campaign. They accepted the use of those vehicles and they were delivered to one of the candidates, who notionally had responsibility for them both, although obviously he could not drive both of them at once. Over two weeks, the vehicles were driven by the candidates and their supporters. As might be expected during an election campaign, no one kept a log of who was driving at any one particular time. It was not a business. The insurance was for any driver. Anyone who was on the team had the opportunity to drive one or both of the vehicles. 
The candidate may have a valid defence in that he should not reasonably be expected to know who was driving the vehicles at every moment, but if he does not and he is found guilty, it seems to me—the vehicle was only just over the speed limit so it was not one of the more serious cases that I mentioned—that the courts would be justified in giving him three points. They would not be justified in giving him six points, but that is the effect that the clause would have. It is intended to mandate the courts, in every case, to impose six points, even for the most minor transgression of speeding. 
The amendment does not seek to require an ultra-lenient option, but merely to give the courts the discretion to decide, in the circumstances of the case, whether they should give three or six points. For example, a business man with nine points on his licence who drives at an excessive speed and gives no explanation of why he does not know who was driving his vehicle would justifiably be awarded six points. 
Let us consider a case in which someone loans his vehicle in the circumstances I described, not necessarily during an election, but where voluntary work was being carried out and half a dozen people who were properly insured had the use of the vehicle, but the owner did not keep a log. If the courts feel that his error in not keeping a log of who was driving was a genuine mistake—that he did not understand the requirements of the law or of the predicament that he might get into—it is reasonable that they should say that the offence itself is fairly minor. In those circumstances, the courts should award only three points. 
I can see why the Minister wants to amend the law, but the courts ought to have discretion, so that where genuine mitigating circumstances exist, they can take those into account.

Kevin Hughes: May I explain that if hon. Members want to speak, it might help if they made that clear?

David Jamieson: I take it that it will always be expected that I will want to speak at the end of a particular debate.

Kevin Hughes: One never knows.

David Jamieson: The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire's amendment relates to a clause that is, I believe, affectionately known as the Hamilton clause. It refers to an instance in which somebody goes through a speed camera and then has a remarkable act of amnesia when they receive a penalty notice some time afterwards and cannot remember who was behind the wheel.
I take the point about pre-legislative scrutiny. The measures were published six or seven months ago. The Select Committee on Transport had an opportunity to pick over some of the points and I do not take it as a personal attack if an amendment is tabled. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that we accepted Opposition amendments to the Railway and Transport Safety Bill. Not many, I admit, but we felt that the Opposition had come up with a good idea in some cases. 
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen this amendment as one that he thinks is good and ought to be accepted. In the circumstances to which it relates, a road traffic offence is detected but the actual offender cannot be identified without the co-operation of another person—typically, but not necessarily, the vehicle keeper. The most common occurrence of this is in association with speeding offences remotely detected by safety cameras. If the offender was driving greatly in excess of the speed limit he would, if caught and prosecuted, be liable to an endorsement of up to six points or even disqualification in court. However, if in his capacity of vehicle keeper he claimed that he had suddenly been struck by amnesia and did not know who was driving the car at the time, he would then be liable to only three penalty points. So there is an incentive not to admit to a speeding offence. In existing law, if someone is way over the limit, there is a strong incentive to pretend not to know who was behind the wheel. 
Amendment No. 48 suggests that the court might consider giving fewer than six points in some cases. I understand the concern. In certain circumstances, people may genuinely not find it possible to be sure of the driver's identity. However, even in the case that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned of a car or vehicle being used in an election, it is reasonable to expect the person who has taken responsibility for the vehicle to keep a log of who drives it because they need to know that the person driving it has the proper licence. We would not freely allow people to jump in and out of the driving seat. It would not be unreasonable to check the drivers to ensure that they are eligible to drive the vehicle. 
However, the law comes to the rescue of such a person in exceptional circumstances. Section 172(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provides a defence whereby the person 
''did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was''. 
That will not allow members of the right hon. Gentleman's party to drive faster than the speed limit with impunity at the next election—although they will need to accelerate if they are going to improve in the polls—but it does provide a defence. The main point is  that the amendment allows a person who has gone way over the speed limit to get three points rather than six or a disqualification. I am a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is on the side of such a person.

David Wilshire: I listened carefully to the Minister and did not intend to intervene but for his point that it would be reasonable to check drivers' licences. In my experience, that simply is not done. Let us consider an election campaign. On 5 May, we will get rid of this Government. A vehicle will be provided for me during the campaign and it will be driven by various people. I do not think it unreasonable if somebody I have known for 20 years turns up in a car, parks it outside my campaign headquarters and gets into the vehicle and drives it. It would be a waste of time, and offensive, to say, ''Can I check that you're entitled to drive that vehicle?'' given that the person turned up in one and that I know for a fact he has been driving for 20 years. So the argument that one should make certain of what is going on is nonsense.
I can, however, confirm that common sense is applied. I know that because, for reasons with which I shall not bore the Committee, I have had the same number plate on my car for a long time. I changed my car for a virtually identical one—from a photograph, one would not have known that it was not the same car—and the new car was to be delivered with the number plate of my previous car. It looked like my car and had my number plate, so when it dutifully triggered a speed camera, I got the notice. On the basis that it was being delivered to me by somebody—I did not have a clue who that was—I was able to say, first, that it was not my car and, secondly, that I had not a clue who was driving it. It was a difficult issue because the number plate caused chaos. I am pleased to say that the Hampshire constabulary backed off, so discretion is used. The constabulary attempted to track down the person delivering the vehicle, but I am not sure how that went. 
We should not suggest that all people in those categories have amnesia and are trying to wriggle out of getting points on their licence. I regularly share the driving on long journeys. If I did the same journey on a regular basis, I would not have a clue at which time of night I was driving and where I was even a few weeks previously. To suggest that somebody is trying to wriggle out of something when they genuinely do not know who was driving a vehicle is not helpful. I have every sympathy with what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire said.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about the possibility of a defence and I accept that. However, much else of what he said addressed an amendment that I have not moved. If my amendment said, ''delete 6 and insert 3'', or ''delete 6 and insert 2'', his arguments would have considerable merit. However, my amendment would give the courts the discretion to impose between three and six points, so in the case to which the Minister refers, where the  motorist grossly exceeds the speed limit and seeks to avoid getting six points or perhaps a ban by claiming that he does not know who was driving his vehicle, the courts would still be able to do what the Minister wants the clause to do; impose six points.
Where the courts feel that the person should have made more of an inquiry at the time or kept a log, but the offence is a minor transgression and there are mitigating circumstances, my amendment says that they should have the option of awarding fewer points than six. That is not unreasonable, and it does not side with the motorist who blatantly ignores the speed limit; it just gives the courts the power to be fair. Surely, that is what we ought to do. 
Some two or three years ago, I came across a case of three acquaintances of mine who used to share transport to work. Work for them was not at a fixed place, and they travelled to different sites each month. They always used one particular vehicle, but they shared the driving. Some two weeks after finishing a job at one particular site, a ticket came through to the registered keeper of the vehicle, and he genuinely did not know whether he or one of his two friends had been driving. Rather than cause a row between three friends, and although he had a clean licence, he accepted that he was the driver, even though he was not certain. I fear that if the clause remains as it is, it could lead to the opposite situation, with innocent non-drivers admitting that they were driving even when they think that they were not in order to get three points, because they know that if they say that they did not know who was driving, they will be hammered with six. Surely the Minister does not want that, and I hope that between now and Report he will reflect on my amendment. It is fair, reasonable and seeks only to give the courts the power to do what is right in the circumstances.

John Thurso: If a vehicle is registered to a company as opposed to an individual, and therefore the company is the registered keeper, the company, as it does not possess a licence in that circumstance, can say that it genuinely does not know who the driver is and there will be a financial penalty but no penalty on the licence. Is it not the case therefore that more people are likely to register vehicles to companies and that there will be a divergence, with those who offend as corporate users having a different penalty from ordinary individual car owners?

Greg Knight: That is an interesting point. Such registration would be a ruse available only to the wealthy, as they would be more likely to have associations with limited companies. That situation could occur if the clause stands part without amendment, which is why I must insist on my amendment.

David Jamieson: The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) makes a good point, but the court would want to see that a record had been kept by the company about who was driving on a particular day. The company can face a considerable penalty, although obviously without penalty points on the licence.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Again, it is a pity that the Government have not shown enough flexibility to accept my right hon. Friend's amendment. In making his argument, the Minister referred rather disparagingly to the ''remarkable act of amnesia'' in the Hamilton defence. It is important that we should not by implication make defamatory remarks against people, irrespective of whether they were formerly Members of this House.
It was accepted by the court that the circumstances of that case involved two people who frequently drove long distances and shared the driving. Neither of them could remember who was driving at the particular time. For the Minister to suggest that that was a remarkable act of amnesia is to belittle what happened, to try to second-guess the court and to smear a former distinguished parliamentary colleague. His comments were totally unwarranted. 
Can the Minister confirm that nothing in the clause will affect whether the Hamilton defence will still be available to people if they cannot ascertain with reasonable diligence which person was driving? Will he take the opportunity of this short stand part debate to comment on the amount of anecdotal evidence of points trading, not just between husband and wife but between partners and other close companions? Someone who has a large number of points on their licence will get their companion to say that they were driving the car at the material time and that person then carries the points on their licence, thereby undermining the whole of our road safety law. What is to be done about that? 
If the Government continue their inane war against motorists, more and more people will surely try to avoid the consequences of a law that they feel is unfair and oppressive. We know that quite a lot of people are playing a game whereby whoever has the fewest points on their licence takes the rap for a penalty offence,  irrespective of whether they were driving. That point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire in moving his amendment. 
I hope that the Minister will be able to explain in this short stand part debate the Government's policy in respect of the increasing amount of anecdotal evidence about points swapping and also that he will confirm that the Hamilton defence, which he described disparagingly but others would consider a factual defence, is still available.

John Thurso: I supported the amendment because I believe that it is important to allow a certain degree of flexibility. Having flexibility in primary legislation means that amendments can be made, and points can be handed out according to the circumstances of a particular case.
In the intervention I made on the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, I drew attention to the fact that a substantial number of motorists in this country are supplied with company cars. In one notable case a few years ago, the car habitually driven by a well-known football manager was caught in a speed trap, and the football club chose not to state who was driving the car. As the Minister said, a substantial fine was paid—it was several thousand pounds—but the club deemed that that was acceptable rather than allowing whoever might have been driving to receive points on their licence. 
Such cases mean that we begin to arrive at a justice system that has, to a certain degree, one law for the rich and another law for those who are not well-off. In my constituency, the vast bulk of motorists are people who are on sometimes, but not often, on reasonable wages, and they need their cars. I am concerned that they will feel the effect of punishment considerably more than a wealthy person who has the protection of a company. 
I shall support the clause because the basic underlying thrust of the Government's direction is right, and it is correct that we point out to people that attempting to get round the proper penalties for speeding is wholly unacceptable. The Government should look again at the matter and consider whether there might be a case for flexibility at a later stage in the legislation.

David Jamieson: I said that this was affectionately known as the Hamilton clause, but I did not say it was correctly known as such because in that case the court accepted the evidence given, which shows that the system works and that that defence is available.

Greg Knight: I rise to help the Minister. Would it help if he referred to it as the Sir Gerald Nabarro clause? There was a dispute as to whether Sir Gerald was driving or his secretary; his secretary was Mrs. Hamilton.

David Jamieson: Alas, I am old enough to remember that case. I do not want to besmirch someone who is long since dead, but I believe that he was out on important parliamentary business with his secretary and the occasion was so exciting that he could not remember who was in the driving seat at the time.
Often, I see cameras flash a great distance away when other people trigger them. It is often occasion for discussion among those in the vehicle as to whether they triggered the flash, or whether it was someone else. It is unlikely that someone would genuinely trigger a camera and not realise that they were behind the wheel. However, the defence exists; it was used in that case and the court agreed to it. I do not mention that to cast a slur on the court or anyone involved in the decision, but that was what the court decided. Nevertheless, there may be other people who try to use that defence wrongly. 
On the question of trading penalty points, I would not have thought that it was in the interest of someone to accept a penalty on behalf of someone else, any more than it would be for someone to admit to any other crime on someone else's behalf. That would be extremely foolish. 
I am informed that a person who claims wrongly to have committed an offence to get someone else off the hook could be deemed to be perverting the course of justice. If someone got up in court and made a statement, that might be perjury. Those are serious offences, attracting far higher penalties than a small fine or a few points on a licence. The law provides a pretty strong disincentive for someone to lie to the police, or, even worse, to lie to a court of law. In those circumstances, I hope we can support the clause. 
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Penalty points

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Kidney: There are no amendments to the clause, but it merits a brief debate for at least three reasons. First, the courses dealt with here could become one of the Bill's more significant boosts to road safety. Secondly, the Government ought be congratulated on introducing such a measure. Thirdly, I have some questions about how the statutory provision here relates to current practice.
Drink-driving rehabilitation courses were established by law by the last Conservative Government in 1991, piloted in 1993, and made into a national scheme by Labour in 2000. They are now nationally available and well-established, with a statutory basis, national guidelines and approved course providers. The courts use them well enough; 30,000 people passed through them in 2003. They also appear to be effective, according to research and evaluation by the Transport Research Laboratory's paper TRL613, which says it is most people who go through such courses are unlikely to drink-drive again in the future. 
That is what is in place already. Clause 24 proposes to extend those courses to other road offences, most significantly careless driving and speeding. In those cases, courses are already available. However, they are not on a statutory basis, hence this provision; nor are they as well established as the drink-driving rehabilitation courses in terms of national guidance, or even their national reach. It is down to the discretion of individual police forces to offer people the chance to go on, for example, a driver improvement course, instead of accepting a conviction for careless driving. The person pays for the course and undertakes the rehabilitation and education instead. In the case of speeding, some police forces exercise their discretion and offer a place on a speed awareness course, instead of going to court and collecting the fine and the points. Again, the person pays for that course.

Mark Fisher: My hon. Friend refers to ''discretion''. Will he say slightly more about that? Who confers the discretion on the police forces that exercise it? What basis in law, if any, does it have at present?

David Kidney: I hope that the Minister can help me about the statutory basis. I am not aware that there is any beyond the fact that the police have discretion over whether to take cases to court. At present, in cases of careless driving, police forces sometimes offer the offender the opportunity—instead of going to court and facing a fine and penalty points—to pay to go on a training course and undertake rehabilitation and education at his or her expense. Driver improvement courses are subject to some kind of national guidance by police forces and there are registered driver trainers used under contract. I do not think they are available everywhere, but most places now offer them.
I want to raise the issue of how the new statutory provisions interact with the existing courses and the basis on which people will be offered courses. Driver improvement courses can be offered to anybody who is facing a careless driving offence. It might be their first offence, or their second or third. Under the clause, it is a precondition that the person must have at least seven points already on their driving licence before the court can direct that instead of a conviction, penalty points and a fine, they should undertake one of the courses. I question the logic of that. Should it not be first offenders who are offered the opportunity of rehabilitation and education and who are able to undertake courses instead of being prosecuted, rather than those who are at a stage where their licence is at risk? With seven points they would be getting close to disqualification. 
For example, take a persistent speeder. To get at least seven points on their licence under the current law, they would need to have been caught speeding three times. In that case, they would have nine points on their licence. They could not get seven, because it is three points each time. So, when that person comes into court for the fourth time, they will have at least seven points on their licence. If they are convicted for a fourth time, they will get three more points. If all the offences have occurred within three years, they will be disqualified under the totting-up procedure. 
The Bill offers an opportunity to avoid the penalty prescribed by law in relation to disqualification, rather than an opportunity to educate someone who has erred. I just wonder whether, as a matter of public policy, we would prefer to offer the education at the beginning, rather than giving people the chance to buy off disqualification because they are persistent offenders. That is why I ask about interaction and about why we offer the courses under those conditions rather than the conditions I mentioned. 
Driver improvement courses and speed awareness courses are being offered on a discretionary and voluntary basis to first offenders at the moment. Must that stop if we pass this law, or can the courses continue to exist side by side with the law? If we say, ''No, courses will be offered only on the statutory basis in the future,'' I am concerned that we will prevent people from undergoing education and rehabilitation at the beginning, as they can at the moment in some parts of the country. I hope that the Minister can answer my questions. 
I raised those issues for obvious reasons. The significance of widespread opportunities for rehabilitation and education is that they could be an extremely valuable tool in reducing future casualties on our roads, as long as we get the model right in  relation both to the conditions in which the courts make directions and offer courses to offender, and to the content of the course. 
In the RAC Foundation briefing to Members for Second Reading, there was a comment about the variable quality of the courses at present. In that respect, the Bill will make a big improvement. The other thing is public acceptability; whether those who are not offenders think that people are dodging the law by undertaking the courses or genuinely contributing to improving road safety, which benefits us all. That is why I raised these issues with the Minister, and I hope that he can explain and justify what is proposed.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has raised a number of issues, many of which I wanted to raise myself with the Minister. This is potentially a good and useful clause, which emphasises the importance of education and training in improving road safety. As the hon. Gentleman said, it builds on the initiative introduced by the Conservative Government in the Road Traffic Act 1991 to establish drink-drive rehabilitation courses. There are some pertinent questions about why the figure of seven to 11 points has been specified in the Bill, and I await the Minister's explanation on that and other questions that have been put to him.
One other question that I want to ask the Minister is why 12 months must elapse from the date of the order before there is a reduction in the number of penalty points. It is important that the courses are undertaken as quickly as possible, because, as soon as they are completed successfully, there is a better driver on the road than there was before. Surely the reduction in penalty points on the licence should take place as soon as the course has been completed. As I understand it, it would not take place until after a year, thereby reducing the individual's incentive to undertake the course quickly instead of waiting until the end of the one-year period, as only after a year will they see a reduction in the number of penalty points on the licence.

Mark Fisher: I agree with the thrust of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and indeed with the spirit of what the hon. Member for Christchurch said. However, before my hon. Friend the Minister replies, will he think about answers to a couple of questions?
This is a sensible clause that I hope we shall pass, and I shall certainly support it, but is it based on empirical evidence? Do the courses work? The hon. Gentleman said that they were of variable quality. Have the Government done any study of whether those undertaking them are deterred from reoffending? The idea behind them seems excellent, but there is no point in having a system of education and training if it simply defers the moment when a habitual careless driver or speeder meets his nemesis and is disqualified. Do the courses work and have the Government carried out any surveys?

David Jamieson: This has been a short but useful debate. The clause enables the courts to offer offenders convicted of certain specified offences the opportunity  to undertake a retraining course, which will give them a remission of penalty points. The clause inserts into the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 new sections 30A, B, C and D, which enable the court to offer persons convicted of the offences of careless and inconsiderate driving, failing to comply with traffic signs or speeding the opportunity to pay for and undertake a retraining course in circumstances where the driver is not to be disqualified but his licence endorsed with penalty points. Those circumstances are that at least seven and no more than 11 points are to be taken into account at the time of sentence.
 I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, but we must look at the worst cases first. People caught with a couple of offences are perhaps the ones we need to tackle first. If we later think that there is some merit in looking at those on the first occasion, we may do so. 
The hon. Member for Christchurch asked why we set the number at 11. We did so because it is the maximum amount of points that one can get before being disqualified. That includes the points from the most recent offence. If the person has three points, they must have had at least eight points to get to 11. They cannot get a remission of their penalty points if the offence takes them over the top; to 12, 13 or 14 points.

David Kidney: I am interested in my hon. Friend the Minister's decision to ''take the worst first'', and give attention to them. A four-time speeder is the worst offender and rightly should be disqualified from driving to teach them a lesson, rather than being sent on a course to avoid that disqualification. That is what I think should happen to the worst.

David Jamieson: Perhaps I gave a bad example. Of course the worst get disqualified. That is absolutely correct. They cannot be given remission of their points. However, those who are moving in the wrong direction may be within redemption. That is what the clause is about; trying to redeem those who have sinned somewhat but have not proven to be serial sinners, although they may be en route to losing their licence.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, I will check what research has been done on the courses that are offered. I know from what he called empirical information, or what one might call anecdotal information, that people who have been on the courses are full of praise for them. They would not have been totally cynical, or they would not have agreed to do a course, but they may have gone into it with a bit of cynicism, but most people I have spoken to said that the course changed their attitude and was extremely valuable to them.

Mark Fisher: Once the clause is, as I hope, passed and becomes law, is it my hon. Friend's intention to issue national guidance so that there is uniformity among the courses and common high standards? As I understand from everything that has been said in the  debate by my hon. Friends and others, the courses are being developed in a piecemeal fashion, so different courses have different standards.

David Jamieson: It is true that the courses have been developed on a piecemeal basis. I do not think that they have been any the worse for that, although some are indeed better than others. We have been finding our feet.
On page 29, clause 30C and 30D says that the national authority—the Secretary of State or the Secretary of State for Wales—will approve the courses and, in 30D, other provisions to ensure the quality of the courses are set out. As the courses roll out further and become more widely available to the courts, it is inevitable that there will be some standardisation throughout the country. The courses do not all need to be the same, but we need guidelines as to their quality. After all, although the offender will have penalty points taken off their licence, the courses will cost about £150 or £200. They are not a cheap option. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford asked about the police's driver improvement courses. They tend to last about a day or a day and a half, whereas we are envisaging a course that lasts 16 to 30 hours in total, on at least three separate days. That means that it will be much more intensive. It may be for offences other than speeding, perhaps something more complex, such as addressing the carelessness in someone's driving or their deficiencies.

Christopher Chope: If the courses are going to last for 16 to 30 hours and be spread over three days, surely the cost will be much greater than £150 to £200, unless the courses will be subsidised.

David Jamieson: I said that the costs are in that region at the moment. They may cost more. We must, however, ensure that we get good value for money. There is no intention to subsidise the courses. It is not the role of the taxpayer to subsidise people who break the law and then get a remission of their penalty points. It is absolutely proper that that is paid for by the offender not by the taxpayer.
The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned that it takes ten months before the points come off the offender's licence. That is reasonable and sensible because, if a person had the points taken off their licence immediately, they might think that they could reoffend. They have to demonstrate over almost a year that they have not reoffended. If they reoffend during that period having completed their course, they may, after totting up, lose their licence. First, the person takes the course, and secondly, they receive some remission of points. The provision is a further incentive to that person, who will have almost another year in which to demonstrate that they have learned from the course. Otherwise, the points come winging their way back and could lead to a disqualification. It is right that that provision is included and the clause is valuable and useful.

David Kidney: I just want to check two final points with my hon. Friend the Minister. First, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent,  Central, will he provide an assurance that, just as the Transport Research Laboratory researched and evaluated the drink-drive rehabilitation courses, there will be similar research into and evaluation of the proposed courses? Secondly, does that scheme crowd out the existing discretionary schemes, including offers to first-time offenders? If so, will my hon. Friend the Minister look more closely at my concern that first-time offenders will lose the opportunity of education at the right time; when they first offend?

David Jamieson: I do not think that the scheme will crowd out those courses. The clause provides in specific circumstances for certain courses. My hon. Friend just reminded me of something rather important when he mentioned drink-driving, as the provision would not be appropriate for drink-drivers. They do not receive any remission of points; they face an immediate ban. The provision would be inappropriate for a person in those circumstances. My hon. Friend will see that some of the other drink-driving issues are covered in the clause that we are about to address.

Christopher Chope: On getting access to those courses, as the clause is drafted one would be able to gain access to them only through the court. If, for example, a driver has three fixed penalty speeding fines, giving him nine points, how would he get his case before a court, thereby enabling him to get on one of those courses and reduce those points? Otherwise, it is all done administratively. As I understand it, the virtue of the driver improvement and speed awareness courses that the police offer is that they are done as a trade-off at the point where the police meet the offender.

David Jamieson: If somebody already had nine points on their licence and they committed another offence that meant another three or more points on their licence, the provision would not be available to them. The provision covers what a court and not the police may impose.

Christopher Chope: So if somebody has six points on their licence and they incur another fixed penalty for speeding, they should, rather than accept the fixed penalty notice, elect to go court to access the provision. Is that what the Minister is saying; that one must go to court before one is eligible for the improvement to driving that will flow from those courses?

David Jamieson: As the clause is written, that is the case.
Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Driving tests

Mark Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in clause 26, page 35, line 43, at end insert—
 '(1A) In subsection (1) (tests of competence to drive), after the word ''requirement'', insert '', has received first aid training''. 
 (1B) After subsection (1A) insert— 
 ''(1B) An applicant shall be considered to have received first aid training if on the date the application for the licence is made he has received the training prescribed by virtue of subsection (3) below,''.'.

Kevin Hughes: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 74, in clause 26, page 36, line 4, at end insert
'and 
(c) after paragraph (c) insert— 
''(d) the nature of the first aid training for the purposes of this section and section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and the administrative arrangements for receiving such training,''.'.

Mark Fisher: The amendments come rather neatly after that short debate on clause 24, where we explored how knowledge and understanding of behaviour on the road can make for a better driver. The amendments seek to add a further element to driving tests, which are the subject of clause 26. They would make knowledge and understanding of first aid a requirement for anybody applying for a driving licence. At present, there are some brief remarks about first aid in the highway code, on which every new driver is tested, but they are cursory. When I was tested—admittedly, rather a long time ago—nobody asked me about first aid. Although all new drivers must gain a working knowledge of the highway code in order to pass, I doubt whether many people are informed about first aid by driving instructors or tested on it when they take their test.
Knowledge of first aid is important. It would ensure that anyone on the road would be prepared for the consequences of an accident, which may be horrendous or, ultimately, fatal.

Greg Knight: I have some sympathy with the amendments, but I would not wish the whole system to become over-bureaucratic and costly. What level of first aid training does the hon. Gentleman envisage, and what cost does he think would be added to the fee that a member of the public would have to pay to take their test?

Mark Fisher: Those perfectly reasonable questions flush out a confession from me that the amendments are intended to probe the idea of such a requirement being added to the test. If they found sympathy with the Minister, more work would have to be done on the rigour of the test and therefore all the consequential items, such as cost. However, the Government have not accepted that we need more than what is in the code at present.
Much rests on our ability to deal with an accident. Many of us drive to our constituencies on motorways. I hope that none of us are involved in an accident or called to the scene of one. Most accidents that result in  fatalities involve blocking of the air supply, which can kill within four minutes. That is well inside the time that it takes the emergency services to get to most motorway accidents. 
The emergency services are wonderful. One of the busiest parts of a large motorway, the M6, goes straight past my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. The North Staffordshire hospital and the Stafford General hospital receive many—too many—trauma cases from the M6. 
Anything that we as drivers can do to assist in such traumatic events must surely be seen as pro-social. I ask members of the Committee whether, as experienced drivers who do literally thousands of miles every year, they are absolutely confident, having read the highway code, about how to behave to minimise loss of life or traumatic stress if they were at the scene of an accident. 
After more than 40 years of driving, I certainly do not feel confident; I would be nonplussed. I hope that I would behave calmly and sensibly in such a crisis, but I know that I would behave inexpertly. Tabling the amendment has made me rather ashamed of the fact that I would not be of great help to anyone involved in such accidents. I ought to be; I ought to go on a course and improve my ability. Whether I am too old a dog to learn such tricks, I do not know. 
Thinking about the amendment has made me realise that I am not really up to it, and I ask Committee members whether they are confident that they would know what to do in the event of an accident. If the answer to that question is no, I hope that the Minister will consider the matter seriously. She may not accept these probing amendments, but I hope that she will return on Report with something drafted by her officials. The matter is very important, and it would be a small, helpful strengthening of the driving licence if it incorporated a more rigorous test of first aid skills.

David Wilshire: My starting point is the same in principle. I want to agree with the hon. Gentleman because his points are absolutely right. However, I am not sure on two counts whether the amendment is the right way to deal with the matter. I speak as someone who for 11 years of my life was greatly involved in a large scout group that seriously and regularly dealt with first aid matters. That was quite a few years ago now but it is still relevant. My experience gives me insight into why I have some caution about what the hon. Gentleman says.
I am concerned that we are, rightly, identifying a general responsibility that we all have, irrespective of whether we are drivers or not. The question could be applied all over the place, and we need to be a little careful in taking something technical like a driving test and bolting some general responsibilities of society on to it. One might say that people ought to know something about first aid if they drive, but all of us, if  we were given time, could come up with a list of other things that it would be sensible to bolt on as a general responsibility.

Mark Fisher: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but would he accept that there is already a relevant paragraph in the driving licence? All the amendments would do is strengthen that and make it slightly more rigorous.

David Wilshire: I understand that. That is why I started out wanting to support the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that I shall end up doing so. One of the reasons for that is that the responsibility is a general one, and I am not sure that we should specify that drivers should know about it. That rather implies that other people need not do so.
My main concern, however, comes in response to the hon. Gentleman's question of whether we would know what to do. He would see it as a justification for supporting the amendment if we did not. All those years ago I learned two things; they may not be what the hon. Gentleman would expect but I still think that they are still more important than anything else if we go down that route. What I learned is more important than the immediate response of stopping, leaping out of our cars and doing what we can to help, which is what we would instinctively all want to do. 
The hon. Gentleman says that we should be more skilled at doing that, which does tend to put in people's mind that the first thing they should do is stop, get out and try to help. I am not sure that I would want to encourage that, because the first thing that was drummed into my mind was that the first thing one needs to do is to ensure there is not another accident. That sometimes means that people should not go to the aid of the person that they think needs help. If people attend to that person and allow further accidents to occur behind them, what begins as a feeling that one ought to help one person ends with six, seven or however many needing help, and a multiple pile-up on the motorway. That is a classic example of how, by attending to a person who is already injured, someone can easily take their mind off what is even more important than an accident involving one person: the possibility of a load more.

David Kidney: Having undertaken a little first aid training in the past, I can happily tell the hon. Gentleman that the first thing people learn is to assess the situation and to make sure the scene is safe.

David Wilshire: I do not dispute that for one moment, but that is the first issue in explaining why I have a degree of nervousness about this amendment.
The other issue about which one has to be careful when telling people that they need to know something about first aid is the phrase, ''Do you have some sticking plasters or Savlon in the car?'' I am not advertising; it just happens to be what I tend to use. All these items come to mind as ''first aid''. One of the other things that is drummed into those of us who get involved in these sorts of situations—I gather, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the first thing one is told is to be careful—is that there is a real risk that people  with a relatively minor amount of first aid knowledge that probably could be acquired under his proposal will leap out to help somebody who is seriously injured in a car crash and will make matters worse; the broken back syndrome or clearing airways, for example. In theory, they are easy, but it is possible to kill someone in the process. In this case, ensuring that there is not another accident while waiting for 10 minutes can often be more helpful. 
I understand and have huge sympathy with the point; yes, all of us, whether we are drivers or not, should have a greater knowledge of what to do. However, with the amount of add-on that I would expect, we could not only make it possible for further accidents to happen, but add to the number of fatalities when we do not intend to do so. I do not mean that unkindly and I am not trying to rubbish what the hon. Gentleman says, but as I listen and think, I am not sure that this is the way to go about something that in theory we all ought to be more concerned about.

Greg Knight: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about this, but I have to tell him that I am in the unenviable position of finding myself between him and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I start from the premise that greater knowledge is generally a good thing. When looking at people who have control of something that weighs two tonnes and is capable of travelling at 80 mph it seems to be common sense that drivers should have some basic knowledge of first aid. One could argue that pedestrians should have the same knowledge and perhaps this is something that we should consider bringing into the school curriculum. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not sure that this is the correct mechanism with which to bring this about.
I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, because the greater knowledge one has of first aid when one is in a situation where one is likely to encounter people who need treatment can only be a good thing. I wondered what our European partners are doing in this regard and whether there was any development there. I was surprised last year—[Interruption.] What did my hon. Friend say?

David Wilshire: I was just saying to myself that I hope this is not a plea for a further Brussels directive on something.

Greg Knight: Far be it from me to plea for a Brussels directive, but I do think that we can learn from other nation states and should continue to do so. I was about to say, before the sotto voce mumblings reached my ear, that I was in Spain towards the end of last year. I was surprised to see that they now have a requirement that every vehicle must carry within it a yellow jacket. In the event of a breakdown, when it is necessary to get out of the car and stand on the highway, the jacket must be worn. It seemed to be a sensible idea, particularly bearing in mind the number of people who are injured or killed when their car breaks down and they find themselves having to change a wheel or whatever at the side of the road. In the last five years I have owned two vehicles—a BMW and a Vauxhall—where a first aid kit was part of the standard package of the car. I say well done BMW and Vauxhall.  Perhaps all the manufacturers should provide a first aid kit with the vehicles they sell, but it is no good doing that if the driver does not know what to do with it. Therefore, as I look at the amendments, I find myself moving more towards the Stoke-on-Trent position and away from my hon. Friend's, because knowledge here could save lives. I am well aware that in some cases a little knowledge can be a bad thing, but the Government should at least do some work to see whether it should be made part of the driving test.

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that drivers are not the only road users? There are also pedestrians and cyclists. As most accidents take place in built-up areas and quite often involve pedestrians and children, why should all road users not be required to have the same qualifications?

Greg Knight: That is a fair point. It is certainly something that the Government should look at. Best practice dictates that those on the public highway should have some knowledge of basic first aid.
It is not strictly within the ambit of the amendments, but I hope that you will allow me to mention this in passing, Mr. Hughes. I also feel that the driving test should do more to ensure that motorists have a basic knowledge of the vehicle that they are driving. I well remember three years ago noticing a car full of young girls stopped by the side of the road, with steam coming out of the bonnet. The girls were very upset and agitated because they realised that they had broken down and thought that there was a fatal problem with the car. They were near the car park of a public house where there was a tap. I stopped to make inquiries and asked them to open the bonnet, and it was simply a question of topping up the radiator. So I was able to show them where the tap was, wait until the car had cooled down and send them on their way. 
There are many instances where, because of a minor fault, a car may cause an obstruction and be a potential accident risk. If the driver knew, for example, that he should check that the plug leads were all in place or how to carry out some of the basic maintenance jobs that anyone who has tinkered with a car will know about, that knowledge would be useful. 
I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the points made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, even if she tells the Committee that, for various reasons, she does not want to go down that route.

John Thurso: I have among my papers the Second Reading brief from the British Red Cross, which answers some of the questions that hon. Gentlemen have posed about what it might be considered practical to include. It says:
 ''The test itself would be basic and include only the essential knowledge for dealing with the most likely scenarios caused by road accidents: scene management, blocked airway, bleeding and shock.'' 
It goes on to say: 
 ''Many of the skills required could be learnt in as little as two hours and the British Red Cross would work in collaboration with partner organisations to advise on how this might best be done.''
Therefore, clearly a relatively brief introduction is envisaged. 
The critical point is that some 57 per cent. of fatalities after an accident take place before the emergency services arrive, and it is estimated that about 80 per cent. could be saved by the judicious intervention of first aid. That is why I believe that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central is right to table this probing amendment and to draw the matter to the Government's attention. I hope that they will find an appropriate balance between making the Bill too burdensome and insisting that people have some knowledge of first aid. 
In that regard I want to make two points. First, it was mentioned that pedestrians and cyclists should also have first aid knowledge. However, as it is usually the pedestrian, cyclist or child who has been hit by the car, it is probably more useful to give the driver first aid training.

Christopher Chope: If a pedestrian is knocked down by a car in an urban setting, perhaps on a pedestrian crossing, surely the driver will be in a state of shock. There will be other pedestrians around.

Greg Knight: The driver might not stop.

Christopher Chope: Indeed. It is important that everyone who uses the road has a basic knowledge of first aid.

John Thurso: It is important that everyone has a basic knowledge of first aid. In many organisations it is obligatory. Whether it is imposable sensibly, other than via a test for drivers, is another matter.
The second point is that, in a work situation, there is a requirement for a minimum number of trained first-aiders to a much higher standard than the basic that is being suggested in the Bill. I cannot remember the exact figure, but it is so many per 50 employees in the work force. A considerable number of road users are commercial ones; lorry drivers, bus drivers and so on. I wonder whether, as a first step, it is worth considering whether the public service vehicle and heavy goods vehicle licences might benefit from including first aid as a requirement. Perhaps they already do.

Charlotte Atkins: We have had a useful debate. We exposed a few differences of view, not least about European directives. An EU standard is set out in the directive about the content of the test. It includes an element of first aid. We satisfy that requirement by putting a question in the theory test, as do other member states. There is no full-blown directive on the issue, but it is set out as an EU standard in the directive, so Europe has already spoken on the issue.
The amendments have a laudable aim. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, who has raised four children, is not aware of basic first aid. I would have thought that having a knowledge of first aid is a basic requirement of being a parent; not that I do, because I was never  able to take my badge in first aid as a Brownie or a Guide. Those organisations do a marvellous job training youngsters in first aid. 
To be of real value, first aid skills need to be held by people who are both competent and confident in the use of first aid principles and are willing to update them on a regular basis. In some circumstances, a little knowledge can be a bad thing. Many organisations run first aid courses and the amendments draw attention to the valuable role that those organisations play. 
We should consider the question of commercial drivers taking first aid courses as a first step, because they can be an asset in a motorway accident. Despite the fact that we in Staffordshire have a fantastic ambulance service, my hon. Friend is right that most ambulances would not arrive in eight minutes. That can be crucial to the survival of one of the people involved in the accident. 
We are concerned about imposing an additional burden on learner drivers and those seeking to upgrade their driving licences. Part of that burden would be financial. I accept the point that my hon. Friend made. Clearly he has not looked into the costs of the measure but, as with most fixed costs, the first aid training fees would impact particularly on those with low incomes. We want to avoid that. It would be extremely difficult to justify that additional cost on road safety grounds, although I accept that first aid courses would be valuable for other reasons as well. 
The purpose of a driving test is, clearly, to establish a person's competence to drive. As I said, we have included questions on first aid and accident handling in the driving theory test. The Government believe that that is the most appropriate way to test candidate's knowledge of first aid. We should encourage drivers to take up first aid courses, but not as a requirement of the test. It would be grossly unfair to deny someone a driving licence when they have passed their theory and practical tests, solely because they have not received the prescribed first aid training. I recognise that it is a probing amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw it.

Greg Knight: The Minister has answered the debate well, but I have three points. First, the EU directive is a minimalist requirement, so will she assure the Committee that the Government will keep an eye out for best practice overseas? There may be some developments in other countries where, by making sure that drivers know a little bit more about first aid, lives are saved. Secondly, will she touch upon the desirability of ensuring that every driving test applicant knows the basics of car operation? With that, if they were to find themselves stranded because a minor fault has developed on their car, they would be more likely to rectify it and move on their way. I have forgotten the third point.

Charlotte Atkins: I am grateful for those remarks. We will keep an eye out for best practice, because it is important to raise those issues.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will withdraw his amendment. We want to explore the subject of the amendment, not just because it makes sense for people to know first aid as drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists in particular, as they are likely to come off their bike, but it is a skill that we need in our everyday lives. I have been in domestic situations in which I wished I had had more competence in first aid.

Mark Fisher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for her reply. I must confess that I was steeling myself for her saying that the amendment was defective; I was a little taken aback for being told that I am a defective parent.

Charlotte Atkins: I thought my hon. Friend accepted that.

Mark Fisher: I am very self-critical, but I will pass that comment on to my children, and see whether they agree with the Minister. She is an old and dear friend, and we have adjoining constituencies. I suspect that she did not mean it to be a cruel remark, but I will consult my children, all of whom are also probably inadequate at first aid, in spite of their having passed their driving tests many years ago.

Charlotte Atkins: My child would agree that I am a defective parent.

Mark Fisher: I was slightly more disappointed by the thrust of the Minister's rejection. At times, it veered towards the point made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that we should leave first aid to the experts. I would have been slightly happier had she left the door a bit more ajar, and recognised that the requirement in the driving test is pretty loose. Most of us can get on to the road and pass the technical, manual sides of the driving test without knowing much about first aid. Perhaps I misinterpreted the Minister's remarks, but I hope that she will recognise that things are not perfect at present. The amendments may not be precisely what is needed to toughen up and beef up the requirements, but I hope that she will keep an open mind on the matter.
An interesting point was made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Kinross—

John Thurso: Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross.

Mark Fisher: The name of the hon. Gentleman's constituency is a poem in itself. I should know it by now. He made a good point about commercial practice.

Charlotte Atkins: My hon. Friend did not listen. In fact, I said that I wanted to think about his amendments, as he made a valuable suggestion. Certainly, first aid courses for commercial drivers are something to consider. I accept that the theory test could be beefed up to ensure that drivers have more basic knowledge. My point was that more of us—drivers, parents, pedestrians, cyclists—should consider taking first aid courses.

Mark Fisher: I am glad to have that robust reassurance, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is as well. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I have just one question for the Minister. Can she explain the circumstances in which she will use the regulation-making power being granted by clause 26?

Charlotte Atkins: The clause will introduce more flexibility in regulation-making powers in respect of driving tests. For instance, we would try to ensure that we adopted the user-pay principle for fees. At present, some 45 per cent. of practical test appointments are for re-tests, for which there is only the standard fee. The clause would enable greater flexibility so that we could conduct business in respect of driving tests in a better way.
Another example is driving schools booking many tests. The current legislation is very much based on the old-style idea of the test applicant booking just one appointment, whereas increasingly, because of the way in which commercial drivers work and are trained, it may be sensible for a driving school to book a whole range of driving tests. 
There may also be situations in which an examiner, having seen a test candidate's licence, would want to ask that it be surrendered. The clause would allow us to clamp down on driver licence and identity fraud. The new provision will enable examiners to remove suspect licences from circulation if checks reveal a problem. It provides more flexibility and is a sensible way forward. It will ensure that the people who create more costs for the Driving Standards Agency, rather than all other applicants, bear them.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Can she confirm that the powers would not be used to enable bulk buying at a discount or block booking by large driving schools, which might result in disadvantage to small, individual-person driving schools? She mentioned bulk buying and block booking, which immediately raise the spectre of discounted rates and the squeezing out of small  businesses and individual operators. Can the Minister assure us that the powers being taken under the clause will not be used in a discriminatory way against small, one-man band—or one-person band—driving schools.

Charlotte Atkins: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Instead of all-or-nothing rearrangements of appointments, it will be possible for partial refunds to be made. At present it is all or nothing; a full refund or nothing. Clearly it would make sense for the Driving Standards Agency to be able to deduct an administration fee in the 45 per cent. of practical test appointments that are rearrangements, so those who insist on rebooking the appointment will pay a small fee. That is the idea, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will not discriminate against small driving schools.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Disqualification until test is passed

Charlotte Atkins: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in clause 27, page 37, line 17, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
 '(6) After subsection (13) insert— 
 ''(13A) Before making an order under subsection (3) above the Secretary of State must consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.''.'. 
This is a technical amendment that has arisen because, sadly, there has been a drafting mistake. The amendment provides for the wording in subsection (6) to be removed and replaced with a provision that requires the Secretary of State to consult such organisations as he thinks fit before making an order under section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. 
Subsection (6) of the clause amends section 88 of the Act to require that regulations under section 36 are subject to consultation with the interested parties. However, the subsection is technically wrong, because section 88 relates to regulations made under part III of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, whereas subsection (6) falls within part II of the Act. It is merely a technical amendment, which arose out of an error, and I ask the Committee to accept it. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Granting of full licence

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I want to ask a constituency question, which I hope the Minister will answer on this clause or the next one. A constituent who is going overseas has a licence that is valid but registered to him at his old address. He has just moved house. He has asked me whether he should send his licence off now or wait until he comes back from holiday.
Can the Minister tell us, for the record, what the average turnaround time is for someone submitting a licence merely to register a change of address? In other words, how long will my constituent be without his licence if he posts it off to register the new address? Will it be a couple of weeks or longer?

Christopher Chope: Paragraph 88 of the notes on clauses says:
 ''The power to impose conditions on licences would be used, for example, in relation to a driver who had previously been disqualified from driving for a drink driving offence, but had agreed to a court order allowing him to participate in an alcohol ignition interlock programme (as provided for by Clause 14). The condition would require the driver to drive only in accordance with the alcohol ignition interlock programme.'' 
That is an example, but the clause seems to grant much wider powers. Unless I am corrected by the Minister, I believe that one of those powers would be to force learner drivers off the road if they had not passed their test by a specified time. We have introduced similar powers in relation to motor cyclists. Can she confirm that the power in the clause could be used to force a person with L-plates to take a test, for which they could have their driving licence removed if they failed?

Charlotte Atkins: I do not believe that is the case. A learner driver who had passed their test would certainly have to apply for their full licence within a two-year period, but there is no provision or intention that we should require a learner driver to pass their test within two years. The issue is that the driver must apply for the full licence once they have passed their test.
I am informed that the turnaround time for the new licence is 10 to 15 days. I am sure that the constituent of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire will make a decision based on his period of time away. Presumably, if he is changing address, he will not be required to pay a fee for his new licence. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 - Compulsory surrender of old-form licences

John Thurso: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in clause 29, page 38, line 21, leave out
'pays such fee (if any) as specified by the order, and (b)'.

Kevin Hughes: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 68, in clause 30, page 39, line 13, leave out subsection (1). 
No. 72, in clause 30, page 39, line 24, leave out 'that Act' and insert 
'the Road Traffic Act 1988'.

John Thurso: The three amendments, the first of which is to clause 29 and the others of which are to clause 30, essentially address the same question. Why do the Government wish to change the fee arrangement, and what is their thinking behind that? Amendment No. 69 would, in subsection (1)(4)(a) of clause 29, which introduces the ability for the Secretary of State to charge a fee, take that out and removes the words
''pays such fee (if any) as is specified by the order''. 
Amendment No. 68 would remove subsection (1) of clause 30, which would have the effect of returning the legislation to its current state so that 
''any licence granted under this subsection shall be granted free of charge''. 
Amendment No. 70 is consequential on that, in simply rewording subsection (1). 
Under the current regime, having passed our test and paid the necessary fees, we are granted a licence, which the vast majority of us get to keep until the age of 70. A photocard has now been deemed to be a better form of licence, but no change was made to the system  of charging. Now there is the possibility that new forms of licence may be introduced at any time in the future, and in any form. We do not know what we might be providing for; the new licence could be a card with a photograph and a chip, and, with the way ID cards are going, might contain DNA and all sorts of other jolly things. 
Different Ministers and Secretaries of State could decide on a regular basis that changes should be made to the system, and on each occasion a person around my age, who had happily passed a test some years ago, paid their money and got their licence, would have a new charge imposed on them that had not existed in the past. That may or may not be right, and I want to test the Government's thinking. 
During the last short debate, on which I did not intervene, because I knew I had these amendments, the Minister said that we should have the user pays— 
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without the Question being put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock. The Committee consisted of the following Members: